from inhabitants of Keimoes, for extension of railway from Prieska towards Keimoes.

from J. Temlett, for the grazing rights of certain land owned by him in Bolotwa.

from J. J. Boshoff and 163 others, for remission of repatriation debts.

from D. F. Ellis and 70 other registered owners of land in Embokotwa, Elliot, for cancellation of certain conditions in their title-deeds of even restricting transfer and hypothecation.

from D. Hunt, railway clerk, for condonation of breaks in his service.

from W. H. Stephens, who was dismissed from the Natal Railway service in 1911, for an inquiry into the circumstances of his dismissal and for a gratuity.

Tariff of Allowances payable to Jurors and Witnesses; Amendment of the Rules of Natal Magistrates’ Courts, published on the 3rd of April, 1914.

moved that the following be a Sessional Standing Order viz.: (1) That on and after Wednesday, the 20th inst., the House suspend business at 6 o’clock p.m. and resume at 8 o’clock p.m. on Wednesdays, Government business to have precedence from 8 o’clock p.m. on such days, subject to the following: If at five minutes to 6 o’clock p.m. on such days Government business be not under consideration, Mr. Speaker will adjourn the debate on the business then under discussion, or the Chairman will report progress and ask leave to sit again, as the case may be, and dilatory motions, such as motions for adjournment, will lapse without question put. If a debate arises as to the day for the resumption of such interrupted business Mr. Speaker shall order it to be out down for the next day on which the House shall sit: and (2) that on and after Wednesday, May 13, Government business have precedence on Wednesdays.

Does this mean that we take the Estimates in the evenings alone? If so I wish to raise a very strong protest.

No.

The motion was agreed to.

said that in the Bill as amended by the Select Committee the rights of riparian owners were fully safeguarded, and the Government retained right to construct waterworks on the Vaal River either above or below the barrage. The law advisers of the Crown had been consulted, and their opinion was that all the rights of the upper proprietors had been fully protected. He would go further and say that it was in the interests of riparian proprietors to retain their property, over which the Board should have servitudes. He hoped the Rand Water Board would have no objection to an amendment being made in that spirit. Some objections had been raised in connection with provisions dealing with normal flow, but that question was fully dealt with in the Irrigation Act. A Water Court would determine every person’s share of normal flow. Provision, of course, would be made to gauge the normal flow of the river. In his opinion clause 17 referred only to the waterworks and the filtering appliances, and applied only to ground in their immediate neighbourhood. It would be practically impossible to apply its provisions over 117,000 square miles of ground. He denied that the pollution clauses were impracticable. He thought where public health was concerned no provisions could be too drastic. As an upper proprietor, he held that one could not be too careful in taking precautions for the prevention of pollution. The Special Water Court would be appointed by the Minister under the Irrigation Act, and there was, therefore, no fear of partiality. Turning to the question of the pumping of dolomite water, he said he had been grieved by seeing the way in which farmers had been deprived of water in the Klip River valley of which they had formerly a superfluity. One of the strongest arguments in favour of obtaining Water from a flowing stream was the manner in which large tracts of country had been rendered arid by boring. It was not only for the benefit of Johannesburg but of the farming community as well that a scheme should be proceeded with. He hoped that in a not distant future the scheme would be extended so as to embrace irrigation works for districts on the banks of the Vaal. It was a moot point whether it was the result of boring that dolomite water on the Klip River was not so strong now as it used to be. It was possible, however, that the supply had been interfered with by deep level mining on the Rand, and it was his own opinion that water now pumped at Zuurbekom would otherwise be available in the Klip River area. He hoped the Bill would be thoroughly discussed in Committee and that the necessary amendments would be accepted. He expressed his thanks to the Select Committee for its work in connection with the Bill.

said that, having been a member of the Rand Water Commission, he might be permitted to express his views on the merits of the Bill. He feared on that side of the House, especially amongst those members who before they began to take part in Parliamentary affairs had distinguished themselves in municipal matters, and in many cases had become Mayors of their respective towns these gentlemen naturally inquired why the water supply of the municipalities was in the hands of another public body? It was a question that had been asked over and over again, and previous speakers had not made an attempt to go into the question, because they thought that every member was acquainted with the matter before the House. It was at the instance of the Johannesburg Town Council that the Government of the day appointed a Commission to inquire into the water supply of the Rand. It was not at the instance of the mining people or the municipalities in general, but the Johannesburg Municipality. In addition to the necessity for a good supply of cheap water, towns were going up which had since become fully-fledged municipalities; they were also looking out for water, and, in addition, there was the needs of the mining industry. Whatever they might think about the mining industry, he was sure they would agree that if there was no industry, there would be no Johannesburg. He remembered the day when water was carted about and sold by the bucket. The Commission did very good work, and the result was a recommendation to the Government to form a Water Board. The reasons for the formation of a Water Board were many. It was felt that if there was one authority to supply all, the benefit would be greater to all concerned. If each municipality had tried to get its own water supply, there would have been such competition in price that the price might have been sent up to any figure. The hon. member for Commissioner-street, with rare ignorance, had declared that the water was in private hands, and that that should not be the case. Well, the water was not in private hands, and never had been, since the Water Board came into existence. It was a public body, in the truest sense of the word.

Continuing, he referred to the remark made by the hon. member for George Town, and was understood to say that that hon. member had said that certain members of the Water Board were “bought.”

I said nothing of the kind. It is totally untrue.

It is perfectly true.

It is not.

It is something that the hon. member would not repeat outside.

asked Mr. Speaker on a point of order whether it was in order for the hon. member to say that he had made a statement which he did not make. He did not use the word.

The hon. member cannot interrupt.

Withdraw!

An explanation is not a point of order.

He deliberately said that members—he called me a liar, sir. I move that the word be taken down.

I did not hear the word used.

I heard it. (Laughter.)

Ask him to withdraw.

said that the hon. member for George Town made it perfectly plain that members of the various Town Councils who sat on the Water Board were men subject to the influence of the mining people.

I did not say that.

Well, it was only a cowardly way of saying the same thing. Continuing, he was understood to say that the hon. member for George Town said that the members sent by Town Councils were subject to influence. What did it mean?

Did I say that?

said the innuendo was that these men were not honest men. But it was part of the stock-in-trade of the hon. member. The hon. member scarcely ever got up to say anything without sneering at somebody. He (Mr. Quinn) had been a member of that Board.

Hear, hear. (Laughter.)

said there were also some of the friends of the hon. member for George Town, but he could not speak for them. (Laughter.) To speak in such terms of men who had given their time freely and willingly without pay or reward was a mean and nasty thing to do. It was true that on these Town Councils the friends of the hon. member for George Town were not in the majority, and he supposed that that was the reason for the sneers. To talk of the Water Board as a private body was nonsense. It was to avoid the water supply getting into the hands of private people that the Board was created. He did not think there could be a more representative body, he added, and the mines and the towns paid the same price.

The Board supplied the water in bulk to the various municipalities, and the municipalities were responsible for what they did with it. Of course, the cost of distributing the water was very considerable, but it had to be paid for by the mines and towns alike according to the expense involved. The point he wanted to make was that the mines and towns paid equally for their water. On more than one occasion when a scarcity had been experienced the mines had taken less water than they were entitled to and left the towns the greater part of the supply. As to the point which had been raised in regard to the cost of the scheme, the scheme provided for something like 20 million gallons per day. As recently as December last the Water Board could have sold as much as 15 million gallons per day, if they had it to sell. He was hoping to see the present price reduced by one-half. He was convinced that, in addition to the eight or nine million gallons which the towns were now using, there would be a very considerable increase of consumption when the supply was cheaper and plentiful. He wanted to impress on the House the necessity of an immediate increase in the supply of water. Some criticism had been raised with regard to the price paid to the Vierfontein Syndicate. He had gone into the facts and, as he was informed, the money paid to the Syndicate was the money spent on that scheme, plus a certain rate of interest.

Compound interest.

If that was all they received, I do not think the comments were justified. They only got back what they had put into the scheme, plus this interest. The hon. member went on to point out that until recently Johannesburg got the bulk of its water from this scheme for a considerable time from the Vierfontein source, The average quantity obtained in 1910 being 43/4 millions per day, in 1911 six millions, in 1912 4 millions, and in 1913 31/2 millions. He thought the House should be careful to see that the rights of the people who lived along the river banks were protected. He found that farmers representing 60 miles along the river had given their unqualified consent to the scheme now before the House, and he was also informed that there was an unqualified consent from the Vereeniging Estates. In concluding, the hon. member said that he knew of no better method of obtaining a supply of water for the Rand than this. They must have a better water supply.

There was a real and serious danger in front of them. It had been suggested that they should ask the Provincial Council of the Transvaal to report on this matter. Was ever such a disgusting suggestion made as that? It was a monstrous suggestion that they should sit there and ask the Provincial Council in the Transvaal to direct them in their business with regard to this water question. He hoped that members who did not come from the Rand, who had no love for the Rand, would realise the urgent necessity of a better water supply for the Rand.

said that, with all respect to the Parliamentary practice in the Transvaal, there was no doubt that, according to the practice of the Cape House and of this House, this was a Private Bill, and he was sure that Mr. Speaker never would have allowed it to be brought in as anything else than a Private Bill. He hoped that that practice would continue, because it would be a very sorry day for the country if private measures which enabled one individual to take away the rights of another were to be brought in by a Government, with all its majority at its back. (Cheers.) With regard to the appointment of the committee, the hon. member for Barberton had libelled one of his (Sir Henry’s) pet offsprings. The rule in regard to the appointment of committees on opposed Private Bills was one of his pet schemes, its object being to secure a perfectly fair and impartial committee.

The evidence supported the findings contained in the preamble of the Bill. There seemed to be an urgent necessity for an increased water supply on the Rand. The point he wished to touch upon more particularly was whether private rights had been reserved. He had always maintained the private rights of riparian owners. As to the first point raised by the hon. member for Rustenburg, he need have no fear at all. The House would have to safeguard the rights of the riparian owners to the ordinary normal flow and to the surplus water over and above the quantity which the Water Board might take. Under the Bill the rights to the ordinary normal flow were absolutely maintained. First of all the Water Court will have to define what was “normal flow,” and then would have to define the rights of riparian owners. The Water Court, further, had the right to determine the amount of water and the places where individual owners could take out water. Of course there must be proper provision against the contamination or pollution of the water. The Court could fix places where individuals could get their water, but naturally people would not be allowed to water their cattle wherever they liked along the river. The Bill was not sufficiently explicit, however, with reference to the surplus water. It was intended that the Board should have a certain amount of surplus water, the other belonging to the riparian owners, but what could be made more clear was the carrying out of that intention. Where a river was the boundary of a farm the owner’s rights extended to the middle of the river, but he had never heard of compensation being awarded to anyone for a piece of land under the water. (Laughter.)

said there was something more in the differences they had heard that afternoon than a mere quarrel between members coming from the Rand. It was a question as to what authority should prevail in municipal matters. (Hear, hear.) They looked upon the hon. member for Germiston as being very much more the champion of the interests of European shareholders than the champion of the people of Germiston. Johannesburg, in many respects, had grave reason to regret that some of its Town Councillors should have given so much of their time to the services of the town. In many directions the people of Johannesburg felt that it would have paid the public to have granted some of the Town Councillors a liberal allowance to refrain from their efforts. For instance, there was the spending of hundreds of thousands of pounds in the purchase of the insanitary areas, and the installation of the gas engines also cost the municipality a great many thousand pounds. With the greatest respect, and with no desire to detract from the public spirit of the gentlemen who gave up so much of their time, he ventured to think that the fact that the first steps towards the formation of the Water Board came from the Town Council should not necessarily carry any weight with the House. He would now like to turn more particularly to the subject of the Bill. Its object could be divided into two parts. The first recognised that for the interests of the Rand a greater supply of water was required. They were all agreed that additional facility should be given for increasing the water supply at the Rand, but the question arose as to how the water was to be disposed of and who should be the controlling authority of the water to the consumers. They considered that there should be only one body entrusted with the distribution of the water, and that was the municipal body itself. He could not see any reason why the mines should be treated on a different basis municipally to the breweries, or any other industrial enter prise.

The hon. member for Troyeville had characterised the proposal as preposterous, and asked what it had to do with the Provincial Council. He was inclined to think that the hon. member and his friends were inclined to uphold the Provincial Council until a month or two ago. This point they wished to impress upon the House. Public authority in the districts concerned should have to do with the distribution of water instead of a hybrid body like the Water Board, and when they went into the history of that institution they had some justification for the view which they held. Did the hon. member for Troyeville deny that in the main representatives of the municipalities had been representatives who were in close touch with the mines? For instance, the representative of the Johannesburg Town Council was a gentleman who was a director of a large number of mining companies, and the result was that instead of equal representation they had representation by pure mines and representation by municipalities largely tinged with mines. These were facts and they were facing facts. He would like to hear the views of the Provincial Council on some of the points contained in that Bill. Several things to him seemed short of just to the municipalities. He went on to refer to the question of standing charges, and said that, seeing that the mining consumption of water was larger than the town consumption, was it reasonable that the charges should be based on the £ for £ principle? Was it not a fact that the whole of the scheme was to enlarge the water supply to the mines and place an additional burden on the municipalities, who had to pay standing charges? Then the hon. member for Germiston had mentioned the compromise which had been arrived at between the mining companies, and spoke of it as though it had nothing to do with the House. He did not see a clause where such a compromise was embodied. Did the House realise that a thing like this was of very great value and importance to mining companies, whether they were crushing or not? The municipalities on the Witwatersrand laboured under a great disadvantage. The mining companies used municipal works but they did not bear their fair share of the burden of municipal rates. There was no reason why the mining companies should not be rated in the same way as any other industrial undertaking inside a municipal area. They held the opinion that the measure should be sent to the Provincial Council for inquiry and that the mines should be placed in the same position as other users of water. They considered that the municipalities should put forward the scheme through the Provincial Council. Referring to the plea of urgency on the part of the Minister of Mines, he said they admitted the urgency of the scheme, and would like to see it proceeded with forthwith. Now that they had a Provincial Council that did not shirk work, there would be no undue delay if it was referred to that body. He pointed out that a telegram appeared in that morning’s “Cape Times” to the effect that in the opinion of the majority of members of the Rand Water Board the time was not opportune for raising such a loan as contemplated in the Bill. He supported the amendment, and said that the House had no right to take out of the hands of the Provincial Council the power of regulating municipal matters.

said that as the interests of riparian proprietors in the Free State were affected by the Bill, he could not understand how the Transvaal Provincial Council, powerful as it might be, could deal with the question. He thought he understood, however, why members of the Labour Party wished to refer various matters to that Council.

said he had suggested that the Transvaal Provincial Council should inquire into the question. As public water was affected, it would, of course, be necessary for Parliament to pass necessary legislation.

proceeded to urge that, when new sources of supply had been provided for the Rand, the people on the Klip River should have their rights restored. He was glad the Prime Minister had expressed that view also, and would heartily support an amendment in order to effect that purpose.

whilst having no objection to the provision of a proper water supply for Johannesburg, said that important power had been given the Rand Water Board by Parliament over various areas from which it was to derive water for the supply of the mines and towns on the Rand. It was a question, therefore, of giving further powers to a Board which already possessed large powers. The chief source of supply was Klip River area, which had suffered considerably, with the result that many farms which were formerly used for agricultural purposes were now quite dry. Another factor which had led to the drying up of the Klip River valley was that, in addition to pumping, various tributaries had been dammed and water diverted to the Rand. A sufficient supply for the Rand was no longer available, and the Board had therefore introduced the present Bill. The hon. member referred to the report of the Select Committee, to show that the rights of riparian proprietors were not sufficiently safeguarded by the new scheme. Mr. Purchas had said in evidence that every precaution had been taken to protect the rights of farmers on the Vaal. The committee had inquired closely into the various rights that might be affected, and he felt sure that it must be made clear that the Bill fully protected existing rights.

It was laid down that the Board could use only flood-water, while the normal flow would be available to the lower proprietors. The amount of normal flow would be fixed by the special Water Court, which would also deal with the normal flow of the tributary streams. In one or two instances he thought sufficient protection was not given to existing rights and existing industries. There was, for instance, the question of drifts. Farmers through whose land the tributary passed might have the communications broken between the two portions of their farms by water thrown back into the tributary by the barrage. There was also the risk of accruing rights being endangered, and the rights of industries using water from the river should also be safeguarded. The provisions of the Irrigation Act of 1912 should be made applicable to the present measure. Clause 1 of the present Bill appeared to be in conflict with that Act. He hoped that no provisions in conflict with the Irrigation Act would be introduced into the present measure. He hoped the rights for the building of the barrage would be granted, for this was in the nature of an experiment. The scheme would enable the country to judge of the possibilities of South African rivers for water storage purposes. Only a small proportion of the flood-water of the Vaal River would be used, but it would enable a great industry to continue its operations, and it would supply the needs of a populous area. He heartily supported the second reading, but hoped that Government would watch the measure carefully with a view to protecting existing rights, and especially trusted that boring for water would now cease, as otherwise it would not help the people in the Klip River valley very much.

said he hoped every member would vote for the Bill, as the demand for an increased water supply for the Rand was urgent. The hon. member for Commissioner-street had stated that the Select Committee would have done far better to have got more evidence from the Rand, but as a matter of fact a number of Mayors, Town Councillors, Town Clerks, and Engineers did give evidence. The chairman of the Water Board said that at one time there was such a shortness that the reservoir was almost empty. He further stated that the Johannesburg Town Council had unanimously agreed that the scheme was a right and proper one. A Krugersdorp Town Councillor informed the committee that his Council was quite agreeable to the scheme going forward. Similar evidence was given by a Town Councillor of Benoni. The chairman of the Rand Sanitary Committee stated that the Town Council wished to carry out a sewage scheme, but could not do so because of the lack of water. Could the Select Committee have had better evidence than it had taken? The Select Committee was unanimous that the Rand must have a further water supply. There was some opposition from the riparian owners along the Vaal River, but when it was explained that the normal flow would be in no way interfered with and that only a very small percentage of the flood-water would be stored in the barrage, the objectors said they were perfectly satisfied. They had not been heard from since, so he presumed that all the riparian owners between the barrage and Parys were perfectly satisfied. The Kimberley Water-works Engineer was strongly against the Bill, but when Mr. Kanthack suggested the insertion of a large number of clauses the former said that if that were done he would be perfectly content. As far as the Select Committee was concerned, it had heard no opposition. The Vereeniging Estates never came before the committee. The third point was that of finance, but he would not enter into details as the matter was clearly explained by the hon. member for Germiston on the previous day. Then there was the suggestion that the Bill should be dealt with by the Provincial Council, and while he was opposed to the rights of Councils being taken away, he would point out that the South Africa Act stipulated that each Council should only deal with its particular Province. He pointed out that each Administrator had sent an engineer to protect provincial rights, and that clearly showed that this matter was out of provincial control. The other point was clause 17. He admitted it read drastically, but it had been in force in the Orange Free State and had not led to trouble. A similar provision in Natal had been found of great use during the time of rinderpest. He sketched the details of the scheme, and he hoped that this dam would be a stepping stone to many other dams on the river for irrigation purposes.

said that every member must realise that a place like Johannesburg must be provided with an ample water supply. While it was necessary to supply needs of the large population of the Rand with water, it was equally necessary that existing rights should be protected. It might be thought that the member for Prieska had little interest in the scheme, but the Orange River passed through his constituency for about 400 miles, and he wished to see how his constituents would be affected. At present they were in some alarm. He was not opposed to impounding water. On the contrary, he thought that if they constructed more dams across their rivers the water supply would be strengthened rather than weakened. He feared that pollution clauses might seriously interfere with the rights of land-owners, for without obtaining permission of the Board, farmers would not be allowed to water their stock in the river. If farmers were to be prohibited from using water, their land would become practically useless. Farms which were cut in two by the water would be in the same position. He urged that every precaution should be taken to protect such rights. As the Bill stood at present he did not think rights were fully protected and he could not support the measure under which inroads were made upon existing rights. He regretted that the Bill had not been introduced by the Government. They could watch what the Government did, but not what the Water Board did, and the Board should have no right to expropriate land. He hoped that it would be found possible, when the new scheme had been completed, to supply the Rand without having recourse to sources on the Klip River. He was satisfied that the normal flow was not interfered with, and he could, therefore, give his vote in favour of the Bill.

said the subject matter of the Bill was one of the greatest importance to the whole of the Union. Johannesburg was the principal market of South Africa; that market was dependent largely on the population of the Rand, and the Rand was undoubtedly in want of a very good water scheme. He had been an inhabitant of Johannesburg since 1899 and could therefore speak with some authority as to what were the water requirements there. He was one of those who, in 1893, opposed a scheme that would have meant their paying 15s. per 1,000 gallons for many years for water supplied to the population. It had been considered necessary that one scheme for the whole of the municipality should be inaugurated. He had heard it said that too much money was paid for it, and with that contention he was inclined to agree. That, however, had nothing to do with the requirements at the present time. He believed the inhabitants welcomed this scheme, and the innuendos that had been cast against the committee which sat on that scheme were not worthy The hon. member for Barberton had tried to frighten some members of the House by pointing out that some of the mines would soon be worked out, but they should not lose sight of the evidence of the Government Mining Engineer given before the Dominions Commission when he said that it was not improbable that so far as new areas were concerned, they would still yield as much as the existing mines were estimated to produce. It was perfectly clear, went on the hon. member, that there were new areas now lying idle, which, with the reduction of expenditure, must satisfy the most far-seeing man that the life of Johannesburg could be placed, as the hon. member for Yeoville had said, at not less than 100 years still. In connection with the question of the cost of production, he wanted to point out that the Government Mining Engineer said the decrease would not lie in the direction of a reduction of wages, The hon. member for Barberton had endeavoured to instil fears into the minds of members of that House and people outside, but his arguments could be placed on one side and no heed taken of them. In regard to this scheme being left in the hands of the municipality and not in the hands of the Rand Water Board, that Board was represented by means of seven or eight municipalities along the Reef. It had been suggested that the whole of the scheme should be left to the municipality of Johannesburg. What would be the effect of that? If the mines at any time wished to get out of any responsibility it would be easy to throw it on to the town of Johannesburg. Whilst the mines were prepared to take the responsibility of 461/4 per cent., it would be ridiculous to saddle the town of Johannesburg with that responsibility. It would not bear consideration for one single moment. There was another school of thought outlined by the hon. member for George Town, who argued that certain of the clauses should be dealt with by the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, but in that matter the Union Parliament had a perfect right to deal with the whole. The scheme was demanded in the interests of the whole of the country, and he hoped it would be accepted by the House.

said that the normal flow of the river would not be interfered with, nor would existing rights of riparian owners be encroached upon, but future rights had not been sufficiently safeguarded. He referred to the evidence of the Director of Irrigation and said he wished to have provision in the Bill that the Board should not be allowed to impound more than 10 per cent of flood water without the permission of the Government. The quantity mentioned in clause 3 worked out at about 10 per cent., but as in the case of the Klip River, it might be that in the future the flow would decrease and the quantity now mentioned would be the whole of the flood water flow. Johannesburg was not the whole of South Africa, and it was therefore necessary to see that the rights of other people were not interfered with. He would vote for the second reading only on condition that the Board should be permitted to take no more than one-tenth of the flood water.

said he had been told that this Bill affected three of the Provinces, but they had heard nothing of the effect it might have on the Province of Natal. He was diffident about saying anything upon this scheme, but there was a matter of principle in the Bill, which, as one from Natal, he felt it strongly his duty to deal with, namely, the question of interference with the very scanty rights that were given to Provincial Councils finder the Act of Union. He felt that those rights had been infringed in certain portions of this Bill. The main portion of the Bill dealing with the scheme was such as, he thought, should naturally be brought before Parliament itself, but when they came to the details of the distribution of water and the control of the local authorities, surely that was a matter that was specially safeguarded in the Act of Union as within the rights of the Provincial Council. This Parliament should not interfere with it, unless they were prepared to say that it was to be a national work. The argument that it was a national work was rather set to one side when they found that the scheme was introduced in the form of a private Bill. He agreed with the hon. member for Barberton that it would have been far better if this measure had come forward in the form of a public Bill. Three Provinces were affected and the Railway Administration was included in this matter, and he thought they might reasonably have treated it as a public Bill. In that case, although they could not have had the safeguard that the Minister of Mines mentioned of the advertisement to the public to come, and, if they desired, to oppose the Bill before the Select Committee, it would have been the duty of this Parliament to see that the rights of private individuals were safeguarded. The Minister of Mines rather let the cat out of the bag when he reminded the House that if this had been a public Bill, they would probably have found the Government riding roughshod over private rights That would have been in keeping with recent precedents. The Prime Minister represented a lot of very dissatisfied people in the neighbourhood of the Waterberg, who had long been crying out against the tapping of their water for the use of the Rand, and, no doubt, it would be very convenient for him if this Bill went through this session, and before a General Election. The hon. member referred to the powers given to Provincial Councils under section 85 of the Act of Union, and went on to say that, if they took the whole of the clauses of the present Bill after clause 20, and even one before, clause 5, which dealt with the power to acquire land in connection with the works, surely the Provincial Councils should have a say in this matter. There was the question of the powers given to the Board of compulsory purchase. If powers were given to the Board to pull up streets without compensation, they were taking away under this Bill rights which the Provincial Council ought to have a voice in. Practically the whole of the last part of the Bill, after clause 20, dealt with local conditions only The hon. member who introduced the Bill very wisely left the question of the control of the scheme alone, because this was a matter which the Act of Union very properly decided should be left to the Provincial Council.

A monopoly was going to be created in favour of this scheme, and local authorities who were under the control of the Provincial Council were not going to be allowed to further any of their present undertakings without the consent of the Board. He was rather surprised at the attitude adopted by certain of the members who sat on his right, in view of the resolutions carried at the Unionist Party Congress held in Cape Town some months ago, in reference to the preservation of the powers of the Provincial Councils and the enlargement of their powers and functions. He was also surprised that a constitutional lawyer of the eminence of the hon. member for Fordsburg should have descended from the high plane from which he generally addressed this House to insinuate that hon. members who sat on the cross-benches were only now sympathetic towards the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, and that they wished to uphold this constitutional principle because they had a majority in that body at the present time. He thought such a suggestion was rather unworthy of the hon. member. The hon. member for Troyeville made no bones about the matter at all. He had said it was a monstrous suggestion that the obvious rights of the Provincial Councils should be advocated here in this House. The Provincial Councils certainly had not had much encouragement from the Government so far since Union. Mr. Meyler went on to say that he did not wish to say anything that was going to hamper the scheme as a whole, but when they got into committee he should certainly deal with some of the clauses which he thought should be handled by the Provincial Council. They could deal with the main scheme on a more general basis. He would support the amendment, and if it were defeated he would in committee move the exclusion of some of those obnoxious clauses which should never have been introduced.

said that when members were asked to sit on Select Committees, he took it that the work they did on those Committees was meant to shorten the proceedings of the House. (Cheers.) But in that debate some hon. members seemed to dip into a report, seize on a sentence, utterly regardless of its context, and then debate the matter without reference to the remainder of the report. For instance, one hon. member had seized on a chance word by Mr. Kanthack, the Director of Irrigation, but appeared to be oblivious of the fact that Mr. Kanthack’s suggestions were adopted by the Select Committee, and that Mr. Kanthack finally expressed the opinion that the whole of the wants of the riparian owners were safeguarded in the Bill. Hon. members on the cross-benches stated that members of the municipalities were not being consulted, but the Chairman of the Rand Water and Fire Brigade Committee told the Select Committee that public meetings had been held demanding an augmented water supply. (Hear, hear.) Another witness stated that the Johannesburg Municipality as a people approved of the Rand Water Board getting the increased power. But still there were insinuations that the people did not want the Rand Water Board to carry out the increased supply. Yet they had people giving evidence, authorised there to apparently by the people of Johannesburg—

Were they?

There we have the same insinuation. Continuing, Mr. Van der Riet said that Mr. J. W. O’Hara, the Chairman of the Water and Fire Brigade Committee of the Municipality of Johannesburg, in his evidence before the Committee, said: Public meetings have been held throughout the city on many occasions. On one occasion what one might call a representative meeting was held by delegates of all the ratepayers, one from each association, who attended and asked the Council most emphatically what steps we intended to take in order to have a better water supply in the city. Then we explained to them what we were doing. The Chambers of Commerce and Trade have continually asked us to make endeavours to get a better supply. The Council expressed the opinion that it was necessary in the interests of the community that the Rand Water Board should proceed to provide an additional water supply of at least 10 million gallons a day.”

When on that resolution the Rand Water Board proceeded to carry out the resolution of the Town Council they had hon. members saying that there was no proof that the inhabitants of Johannesburg required the thing to be done in this way. (Cheers.) If the statements of the witnesses were not to be accepted things had come to a sorry pass. It was alleged that this was all done for the benefit of the Rand mines. People who said that could never have perused the report, otherwise these champions of the labouring men on the Rand would realise that it was imperative for the health of the workers that there should be an increased water supply. Eighty per cent of the water used by the mines was for safeguarding the Health of the miner. Pure water must be used for spraying. Mines could use the water they pumped for industrial purposes over and over again, but for the protection of life they required a very large supply of pure water. Again it was said that this was a Provincial Council matter, and it was asked why should not the Municipalities deal with the matter and Have the Bill divided into parts, some to be dealt with by the House and some by the, Provincial Council. Had one ever heard anything which showed a greater want of foresight and appreciation of the situation than that? An inhabitant of Johannesburg had only 14 gallons of water a day as compared with 50 and 60 gallons per day per head at places like Pretoria and Durban. If there was a fire at Johannesburg and there was a shortage of water like there was last year the whole of the town might be destroyed. According to the evidence there was urgent necessity for dealing with the scheme. In the House it was said that the matter should be dealt with by the Provincial Council, but that was not said until the preliminary work was finished. Then they were told to give the Water Board the powers to carry out their scheme, but that the financial part was to be left out of the question. As to referring the matter to the Provincial Council, that body had no power to deal with the subject, for the Act of Union laid it down that Provincial Councils could deal only with such local works as did not extend beyond their borders. Was the matter to have been put off until after the Provincial Councils had been elected? Probably if there had been a different personnel on the Transvaal Provincial Council the House would never have heard anything of these suggestions. (Cheers.) Again were they to stop the passage of the Bill to find out about the distribution? In the Bill the gathering of the water was to be done by the Water Board and its distribution was entrusted to the Municipality. Did that in any way interfere with the Municipality distributing the water? If the Bill were to be detained by being sent back to the Provincial Council for report there was very small prospect of its passing this session. He thought that this was a matter that should not be sent to the Provincial Council. Very seldom had more pains been taken to see that satisfactory safeguards were furnished. The Government took great care to see that the rights of riparian owners were fully protected. Of course in large schemes of that sort certain minor rights must go under, but these individuals were either compensated or protected in some other way. He thought that principle was accepted in any law that had been passed or that would be passed in the future. He referred to the statement made by the hon. member for Ficksburg, and said that the hon. member had failed to read sub-section (d) of section 13, which explained the matter. They had gone a great deal further in protecting the lower proprietor than simply saying that 10 per cent of the water should be taken. He pointed out that section 17 was taken verbatim from the O.F.S. Act, and would be in force in that Province even if it did not pass in the Bill. Moreover, that was not taken over without being carefully considered by the Committee. He thought that in every respect the Committee had protected the rights of riparian owners. Hon. members had talked about amending the Bill and making it a better measure, and when they came to the Committee stage he would like to see how they were going to do it. The Committee encountered opposition on the part of the Kimberley Waterworks and the riparian owners, but in both cases after explanations had been given opposition was withdrawn. It was now rather late in the day to come forward with objections. On every point he thought the Bill was a good Bill and one that should have the approval of the House. A report from the Provincial Council would only delay the passing of the Bill, and he strongly protested against any further delay.

said his constituency was one of those that suffered under existing conditions on the Rand, although they had there the biggest water-works in South Africa on the Premier Mine. He was convinced that if some provision was not made in the immediate future for a water supply the country around Johannesburg, not only Klip River valley, would become a desert. He knew of many farms that were becoming dry. It was the experience of farmers that as the mines increased the deeper supply of water in the surrounding country tended to decrease. He was not opposed to the Bill, but he would far rather have had Government introducing it. Many questions that should have been dealt with in the Bill had not been included, but he found that when anything was done affecting the Rand, members appeared to become suspicious. Government should have insisted that the principle adopted in connection with the Premier Mine water scheme should have been followed in the present Bill. The Board should have been counselled to purchase the riparian lands affected by the scheme. As a representative of a farming constituency, he had a dislike of expropriation. He hoped the Government would not allow a single clause to pass without scrutinising it closely in the interests of the farming community. Provisions should be made to compensate people in case of dams bursting, and he hoped that no weak dams would be allowed to be constructed. He was not opposed to the Bill, but considered it required amendment in certain particulars.

said that the most interesting feature of the speech of the hon. member for Albany was that he was quite unable to take his own advice. He argued that because a Select Committee had sat on that Bill discussion should be shortened, and then went on to give a three-quarters of an hour’s oration in spite of the fact that he and his Committee had given a report of 230 odd pages. If anybody should have kept quiet it ought to have been the members of the Committee for whom the hon. member had spoken. Nevertheless he was very informative indeed. Proceeding, Mr. Madeley said that a very strong case had been made out by the promoters of the Bill, not for the Bill, but for the scheme which was outlined in it. They on the cross-benches had never yet indicated in the course of the debate that they were opposed to an increased supply of water to the Witwatersrand. Those who had twisted the arguments of the hon. members on the cross-benches had done so either because they had not listened or because they wished to misinterpret what they on the cross-benches had said., As a matter of fact, they were anxious to see an adequate supply of water to the Witwatersrand, and it was for that reason that they wanted the matter referred to the Provincial Council for consideration and report. That body were the most likely to understand the whole of the circumstances, because they were directly concerned. The hon. member for Albany had made great play of the extreme urgency of the matter. They agreed that the matter was urgent. For several years past Johannesburg and district had been faced with a tremendous shortage of water because those who were responsible were not able to tap the sources of supply. They on the cross-benches were the only people who had realised the urgency. The hon. member proceeded to read to the House a report which had appeared in the “Cape Times” that morning of a meeting of the City Improvements Committee of the Transvaal Civic Association as follows: “Rand Water Board. The Vaal River Scheme. Johannesburg, April 22.—There is a strong feeling, if not a definite conviction, among the majority of the members of the Rand Water Board that the present is not an opportune time to proceed with the raising of the £1,250,000 loan required for the carrying out of the Vaal River scheme of water supply to Johannesburg, other Reef municipalities, and; the mines. This has nothing to do with what opposition is being presented to the Rand Water Board Bill, which reached the second reading stage in the House of Assembly to-day; but is because of the state of the money market and the difficulty of raising the loan at the original estimate, 971/2 at 4 per cent. In the circumstances, it seems that there is no hope of obtaining the loan at that figure, and, therefore, the endeavour will be postponed.”

Because there was some difficulty in raising the money, said Mr. Madeley, they found themselves in the position that the people who were responsible for the urgency of the matter were prepared to withdraw because the money could not be raised on advantageous terms The only urgency that existed in the minds of hon. members of that House was the urgency for the passing of the Bill and not for the starting of the work Dealing further with the same matter, the hon. member quoted from the same report that:

The following resolutions were passed to-day at a meeting of the City Improvements Committee of the Civic Association, and their terms were telegraphed to the Prime Minister:

“That in view of the fact that the Rand Water Board is so constituted that the Chamber of Mines has a predominant influence, which is exercised to obtain for the mines supplies of water at the expense of the municipalities, this meeting urges on the Government the necessity of providing more representation of the municipalities on the Rand Water Board.

“That this meeting urge on the Government the necessity of granting to the Johannesburg Municipality representation on the Rand Water Board in proportion to its liabilities for the capital charges.

“That this meeting urge on the Government the necessity of allowing the scheme proposed and the proposals for expropriation and compensation of riparian owners and others, who claim to be interested, to be fully considered by the constituent bodies represented on the Rand Water Board before passing the Bill.

“That this meeting is of opinion that an investigation into the affairs and constitution of the Rand Water Board is necessary before committing the public to further expenditure on a water supply under the Rand Water Board.”

Who is the chairman of the City Improvements Committee?

That is immaterial, and it is not the only resolution they had passed.

Who is the chairman?

Tom Mann. (Laughter.)

said these were also the contentions of the members on the cross-benches long before those resolutions were passed. They knew nothing of those resolutions, and it came as a great surprise to himself and his colleagues when they read them in this morning’s paper. They had no objection to an increased supply of water, nor had they any objection to the Vaal River scheme, with all its details, as laid down in that admirable report.

So far as they could see, the scheme was one that was likely to meet a long-felt want, as regarded water on the Rand, for many years to come. It was not, however, a question of the supply of water or the obtaining of water, but what was the authority that was going to control the distribution of the water? The point was that as the municipalities were at present constituted on the Rand, equal representation numerically on the Water Board was not equal representation in effect with the mines. Let them take the constitution of the Benoni Muncipality. The municipality was composed of four wards, three of which were mine wards and the other one the town ward. Each of these wards sent three members to the Council, thus giving the mine wards nine representatives on the Council, although the voting strength in the township, which had only three representatives, was more than that of the other three wards put together. It was a singular coincidence that these three mine wards were, with one exception, represented by gentlemen who were closely connected with the mining industry. He saw that one of these mine representatives of the Benoni Municipality appeared before the Select Committee. Now the people of Benoni were absolutely opposed to the constitution of the Rand Water Board. The majority of the municipalities along the Reef were similarly constituted. In all those municipalities the people closely connected with the mines were in the preponderance, and consequently swayed the policy. Now let them take the Johannesburg Town Council. The hon. member for Albany had given him, at any rate, the impression that certain gentlemen who appeared before the Select Committee were specially delegated to represent the Johannesburg Town Council in this particular matter, and, in order to prove that they on the cross benches were wrong and that the hon. member for Germiston and his friends were right, he had quoted a resolution of the Town Council of Johannesburg to the effect that it was necessary in the interests of the community to provide an additional water supply of at least 10,000,000 gallons per day. He would ask, what was the question put to this witness in order to convey the idea that they were in favour or not in favour of the Rand Water Board? What the witness was asked was whether the Council were convinced of the fact that more water was required? On that point they on the cross-benches were in agreement. They wanted to see more water obtained, but they wanted to see the right people controlling it, not the Rand Water Board, but the municipalities of the Rand

The hon. member for Troyeville had stated that in a late period of drought the mines stood aside and allowed the water to go to the municipalities. Was that in accordance with fact? He would refer to the evidence of Mr. Purchas, the Chairman of the Board, at page 10 of the report, question 59: “As a matter of fact, the mines themselves to-day take 33/4 million gallons a day?—That is under restriction. The mines were taking until quite recently over six million gallons a day, but we had to keep them down, as we had not the water to supply them.” The mines were therefore, compelled to take less water, and it was not a matter of grace on their part.

It is common knowledge.

This is the evidence on which the House relies. But even supposing they did stand aside, they never took less than the whole of the municipalities combined were taking. The hon. member quoted as follows, from the Engineer’s (Mr. Ingham’s) evidence, at p. 81: “685. [Mr. Henwood.] When you are cutting down do you treat each municipality alike, or do the mines get more, or how do you deal with that point?—The mines were taking a little over 6 million gallons per day at the time. We cut them down to 3.75 million gallons per day within four days. On the other hand we cut down the Johannesburg Municipality, from about 4 million gallons to 3 million gallons per day. The whole of the municipalities were given 3.75 million gallons and the whole of the mines were given .3.75 million gallons.

Read the rest.

said that the concluding part of the answer was as follows: “As a matter of fact, with the exception of the last time, the Board have always taken more from the mines, and the mines have been agreeable to that reduction.” That, he maintained, did not affect the question at all because the quantity taken by the mines never fell below the total quantity of water that was being taken by the municipalities. He went on to ask why it was that the Town Clerk of Johannesburg, who was in Cape Town at the time, was not called as a witness before the Commission? Why was not a responsible official called who might give some indication of the policy of the Council, and the value or otherwise of the Rand Water Board as at present constituted, controlling the water supply? As showing how the present system worked, he drew attention to the following evidence given by Mr. O’Hara, Chairman of the Fire Brigade Committee: “500. Have the light and power committee asked for cheaper water? —Yes, they have, because the Victoria Falls Power Company have been getting their water at 1s. 3d., and the Tramway and Lighting Committee have been paying 4s. 6d. and have had to compete with them. We charge 4s. 6d. to our own power department, and the Victoria Falls Power Company have been getting it at 1s. 3d.” The hon. member had not concluded, when

Business was suspended at 6 p.m.

said that, in view of other important happenings to-night, he did not propose to detain the House long. The dual control exercised by the Rand Water Board was inimical to the interests of the people. While the Victoria Falls Power Company paid only 1s. 3d. per 1,000 gallons, the Rand Municipal Fire Brigade paid 4s. 6d. per 1,000 gallons. It might be argued that the difference in the price was due to the cost of distribution, and that was correct up to a certain point; but the cost at the reservoirs in Johannesburg was 2s. 9d. per 1,000 gallons. This revealed a very dangerous state of affairs, especially when a shortfall in times of drought would bring about differences between the municipalities and the mines. With the present overwhelming representation of the mines on the Water Board, the representatives of the mines always would insist on getting a sufficient supply, however short it might be. That was a great danger. If the municipality had control of the supplies, however, there was sufficient potable water already being pumped. Potable water was not necessary for mining purposes. The major portion of the water obtained by the mines from the Board was used chiefly in the batteries. The institution of this scheme, under the circumstances, meant an additional cost to the people living in the Rand Municipality. According to evidence given before the Select Committee by Mr. McCormack, the present cost per 1,000 gallons worked out at 1s. 91/4d., but under the new scheme it would cost 2s. 2d. The inception of the scheme was to enable the mines to get cheap water at the expense of the people. He wanted to insist that this House, as at present constituted, was not able to decide this question. The House knew nothing about it. All that hon. members knew was that more water was required. The House knew nothing of the details or of the treatment that was likely to be meted out to the municipalities by the Water Board. This House had no right to decide what should be done.

said that in the present Bill the rights of riparian proprietors had not been sufficiently safeguarded. He feared that, unless amendments were adopted, serious inroads upon rights would be made. Land of riparian owners would be appropriated, and rights of approach to the river would be taken away. It should be clearly provided, not only that riparian owners should have access to the river, but also that they should be able to enter upon irrigation schemes. He stated that it was absolutely essential to provide the Rand with an ample water supply, but at the same time, members should not lose sight of the fact that South Africa was pre-eminently a country depending upon irrigation for its prosperity. Areas like that on the banks of the Vaal, which was capable of supporting a large population, should not be deprived of the possibility of partaking of benefits of irrigation. They could not compel the Water Boards to build dams, though it was worth remembering that if the wall were made three feet higher all the riparian owners would have sufficient water for irrigation. He thought the pollution clauses were impracticable, for they hindered farmers in their operations, and he held that the Board had no right to place obstacles in the way of the farming community. Riparian inhabitants would also be prevented from fishing on the river. That might be a small matter, but those small rights should be preserved. It would be necessary in Committee to attend to those matters.

said that he would not have risen at that late stage of the debate if it had not been for the invitation extended to him by a member on the cross-benches to explain how the cost of water would be increased by being under municipal control instead of private enterprises. After experiencing the disabilities from which that unfortunate part of South Africa had suffered in the way of shortage of water for the last twenty-five years, it was greatly to the advantage of that district that something of this sort should be brought before the House. He remembered the time when the people of Johannesburg bought soda water for the purpose of washing their hands, and only those who remembered that period could appreciate the benefits to be obtained from such a scheme as the one before the House. It had been said that this should not have been brought in as a Private Bill. His only objection to that measure being introduced privately was the excessive cost, and he had been told that the cost of bringing this Bill before Parliament would actually run to between £10,000 and £20,000. He believed it would actually cost that amount before the Bill passed through the House. At the same time, he believed it was much more likely that this would be a more well considered and threshed out Bill as a Private Bill than it would have been had it been brought in as a Government measure. The hon. member for Cape Town, Harbour, when he was advocating that these Bills should be brought in by the Government, could not have remembered how little attention was given to such important measures as Railway Construction Bills. He was prepared to say that this Bill, though it was less important, perhaps, than some of the Bills that came before that House, had had considerably more evidence taken upon it than many Government measures. If he had any fault to find with the Bill it appeared to him to create something in the nature of a monopoly, and he would prefer to see, after the sinking fund had been paid off, that the monopoly should come to an end. There was no doubt that when people provided capital they must be provided with a monopoly to a certain extent, but he thought that a time limit should be set. He thought that the people of the Witwatersrand had got a very fine bargain indeed, because when capitalists were prepared to put money into a thing of this sort without profit he did not see how they could get a better bargain.

Proceeding, he said that the hon. member for Commissioner-street advocated more municipal control. The municipal control which existed in reference to that Bill was his (Mr. Fawcus) objection to it. He thought the cost of the work would be greatly increased if it had more municipal control than it had at the present time, and so far as municipal control was eliminated so far they would probably find that cost would go down. If it were under municipal control there was a feeling that there was no money lost. It came out of the ratepayers. All they had to do was to clap on another rate, and certainly there was no likelihood of any great economy being effected. To his mind the best principle of all was the principle of private enterprise in such matters being encouraged as much as possible. With regard to the matter being left to the Provincial Council, he certainly could not approve of that. If it was to be left to the Provincial Councils at all the Provincial Council of the O.F.S. should not be left out, because they had just as much to do with it as the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. He knew the hon. member for Commissioner-street as a misguided but fair-minded man, and the hon. member would no doubt admit that the Free State had a considerable say in the matter. If it were handed over to the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, with their Socialistic majority to-day, it would be a very long time before they captured any Socialistic majority in the Free State. The hon. member for Jeppe had asked him, during the course of his speech, how he had come to the conclusion that municipal enterprise was likely to increase the cost of that scheme. He himself had illustrated the incapacity of the Johannesburg Municipality, which went in for a large suction gas plant at tremendous cost to the ratepayers. That ought to be a good illustration. Municipal enterprise was nearly always an expensive matter. The scheme before them was a good illustration as to the efficiency of municipal work as compared with work done by private enterprise. The total cost to the consumer in Johannesburg was to be something in the neighbourhood of 5s. per 1,000 gallons, and of that amount the work done in raising the water and taking it a distance of 40 miles by private enterprise was to cost 1s. 9d. per 1,000 gallons, and when the municipality had got hold of it their charge for distributing it by gravitation throughout Johannesburg was to be 3s. 3d. per 1,000 gallons, yet their share did not amount to half of the work.

then put the question that all the words proposed to be omitted by the amendment stand part of the motion, and declared that the “Ayes ” had it.

called for a division.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Andrews, Boydell, Creswell, Haggar, Madeley, Maginess, Meyler and H. W. Sampson) voted against the question.

declared the question affirmed, and the amendment proposed by Mr. Andrews, dropped.

The motion for the second reading was then agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and the committee stage put down for Wednesday next.

moved that the second order on the paper, the Industrial Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, be discharged and put down for to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to.

moved that the amendment made in committee be now considered.

suggested that the Order stand over, because they on the cross-benches had some amendments of which they had given notice to put on the Order paper tomorrow, and to have it suddenly altered as suggested was most inconvenient.

said he was sorry the hon. members had not taken advantage to put their amendments on the Order Paper, and he hoped they would not oppose the order being proceeded with.

pointed out that they on the cross-benches were not aware of the course that would be taken by the Minister of Mines. He appealed that the order should be discharged until to-morrow, adding that the Prime Minister shook his head. Nothing said by the hon. members on the cross-benches was evidently of any weight at all, yet that was a most important matter to them.

added his protest, and said to proceed with the third order was quite unfair. Hon. members did not know that that was to be proceeded with, and he and many others were not prepared for it.

said that it was the request of the Leader of the Opposition and hon. members on the other side that he should not at this late hour start an important debate on Order No. 2. It was for the convenience of hon. members that he had given way. He had been quite prepared to go on with the Order on the paper. No. 3 was not a contentious measure. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Public Works had got some amendments on the paper which might be considered now. They could not afford at this stage to lose any time. He hoped hon. members on the cross-benches would see that they were not unreasonable now in asking that these amendments should be considered.

appealed to the Minister to accede to the request to hold over this Order. Hon. members in that part of the House had not been consulted in this matter. They had had no time to put further amendments on the paper, and, if they proceeded with the Bill now, they would be precluded from moving any fresh amendments.

said he would move that Order No. 3 stand over.

I think somebody, to put this discussion in order, should move that the debate be adjourned. The Order has already been read.

said he would move that the debate be adjourned. He was disappointed that Order No. 2 was not to be gone on with, because some of them had come to the House specially for the second reading of the Industrial Disputes Bill.

said he hoped that the Government would agree to the adjournment of the debate. This Workmen’s Wages Protection Bill was looked upon as a measure of very great importance. The Prime Minister must know that unless amendments were on the paper it was impossible to discuss them. There were a number of other orders on the paper that could very easily be got through this evening with advantage. He would remind the Minister of Mines, who had spoken in an airy way of an arrangement with the Leader of the Unionist Party, that there was also another party in the House. (Hear, hear.)

said he would join in the appeal to the Prime Minister to allow this order to stand over.

said it was rather hard upon people who came down there thinking that Order No. 2 was to be taken to find that it was to be passed over.

said he hoped that the Minister in charge of the Bill would agree to the adjournment.

said that members had a fortnight to place amendments on the paper. If the amendments were really important the Labour members should take the opportunity afforded them. The Government had come to an arrangement for the convenience of members, but now opposition had suddenly sprung up, and members objected to the Government using the odd half-hours. As he recognised that an unwilling House would not make much progress, he agreed to the order standing over.

The motion was agreed to and the debate adjourned until Monday next.

in moving the second reading of the Prescription Further Amendment Bill (Transvaal) said he was quite aware that the criticism could be raised that it was not advisable to tinker with an important question like prescription. At the same time this Bill was an attempt to do away with what was felt to be a very great hardship indeed. In the Transvaal a Prescription Amendment Act was passed in 1908 and in that Act was included a clause (5) which dealt with prescription in regard to movables. The result of this clause was that, if A stole an article and sold it to B, after B had been in possession of it for fourteen days, the owner had lost all remedy. A case was brought in the Transvaal to test this view, and the majority of the judges decided in favour of this view, the Judge-President dissenting. Under the insolvency law, if a man sold goods for cash, but did not get payment, he had fourteen days in which to follow the matter up, otherwise it was deemed to be a sale on credit. Representations had been made to him with regard to the hard effect of this clause, which was an acquisitive prescription. He did not like dealing with an important question like prescription piecemeal, but this was a very urgent matter.

What takes its place?

The ordinary common law—30 years. Continuing, the Minister said he hoped there would be no opposition to the Bill. He was sure the Transvaal members would support him.

At the request of Mr. H. P. SERFONTEIN (Kroonstad),

repeated his remarks in Dutch.

expressed the view that the object of the Bill was good.

said that in the Transvaal the position at present was that animals might be stolen and removed to another district. If the owner was unable to find them in fourteen days, his ownership lapsed. He supported the second reading.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and set down for committee stage to-morrow.

moved the adoption of the Committee’s recommendations, Nos. 1 to 13.Referring to one item, dealing with the condonation of a break in service,

asked why this recommendation was not contingent on a certificate being produced, as in other cases? This was a long break from 1907 to 1914.

said he thought that this was a case of ill-health.

The recommendations were agreed to.

moved that the case of R. W. Tanner be referred back. It was a peculiar case. Tanner was a police constable, and served for 19 years 7 months. His health broke down through exposure, and he was retired on pension, but he lost four years and seven months for pension purposes through being retired at this period. This was the sort of thing that played havoc with the Public Service. If the officer had been able to go on a little longer he would have been pensioned on the basis of 20 years’ service.

moved that recommendations seven, eight, nine, and ten, be referred to Government for consideration. He had moved a similar motion last year. Those men were seriously wounded during the war, and had been examined by the District Surgeon of Boshof. Examination was, however, superficial and the physician declared that the men were not incapable of earning their living. They were later examined by another physician, who certified that they had been seriously injured, and had been permanently incapacitated. These were all poor and were receiving no assistance. He did not blame the Land Board for refusing to help the men. The Board had acted on the certificate of the District Surgeon. There was difference of opinion between two medical men. He appealed to members, and especially to those who had taken part in the war, to lend him their aid in obtaining relief for those men, who had a claim on the country for which they had fought and suffered. He appealed especially to General Cronje, who was commandant, and to General Lemmer, who was General during the war, to lend him their aid. He assured them those were most deserving cases. So long as Parliament existed and men were not assisted they would continue to present their case before the House.

said that the cases arising from injuries sustained in the war had to be refused by the Pensions Committee. They did not see their way to recommend any of them, and decided they should be dealt with by the Government.

hoped the case of F. C. Botha would also be referred to Government. That was an extremely hard case. The man had lost his reason and was quite helpless. His family was quite unable to support him. He requested that Botha’s name be added to those to be referred to Government for consideration.

said he did not think there was any objection to the proposal his hon. friend had made now that the Prime Minister had brought it into correct form. He agreed that those hard cases should be referred to the Government for consideration. They were not cases which should be dealt with by the Pensions Committee. No doubt it would not be impossible to find cases of people who had fought on both sides who were incapacitated from carrying on their work, and they were entitled to some relief. To his mind it was the duty of any civilised country to provide for cases of that sort, and he would support the amendment so that those cases and other similar cases should be referred to the Government and some future period should be brought before the House, so that they could decide which cases should receive redress from the House. No doubt many cases will be brought up, where it would not be the duty of that House to give compensation, but there would be many incapacitated from carrying on any occupation and practically in a starving condition, and it was the duty of that House and the Government to fully consider such cases.

said that the Pensions Committee had many hard cases brought before them, but they had taken up that position that if they were to consider all these cases they must have the authority of the House to do so. They felt that they could not go into those cases without special instructions from the Government.

agreed that the cases of hardship should be considered by the Government, but he asked whether all of those rejected cases would be reviewed by the Government; if not, how were they going to get at particular cases unless they were brought forward by members of that House.

These are the only cases.

said that was what he wanted to know. There were those three cases mentioned by the hon. member for Boshof. Unfortunately, the method by which they decided which were to be worthy of consideration by the Government had not been put before the House. They had no information on that point at all. He wanted the Prime Minister to avoid the possibility of any of those hard cases being overlooked to allow the Minister in charge of the particular business to go through the whole list.

said that the hon. member did not quite understand the position. Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10 were referred to the Pensions Committee, but the papers ought not to have gone to that committee, because they were not to receive any pensions in the ordinary sense. The four referred to were cases of people who were wounded in the late war and they were cases for charity now more than anything else. What the hon. member for Boshof had suggested was that the cases should be referred to the Government for consideration. The Prime Minister said he would accept that, and wanted to add the case of F. C. Botha, so that if the suggestion was taken the cases of those four men would be inquired into by the Government. In the other cases the Select Committee had inquired into them but could not make any recommendation.

reminded the Prime Minister that many cases had come before the committee who had received injuries or lost property during the time of the war, but those were not the only cases which had been rejected by the committee, of which he (Mr. Boydell) was a member. Many cases had been referred to the committee, which they had to turn away because they did not come within the scope of its work, and he hoped that other people who were suffering under the same disabilities as the cases which were to be considered by the Government would now know which way to go, to the Government direct. Many of those other cases to which he had referred were really deserving cases, sick and lame and old and blind. What he would suggest was that the Government should institute a fund of some sort to help all those deserving cases. Even if they had not fallen in the war they had fallen in the battle of life in some way or other, and it was high time that some fund was established to assist such people. If the Government was prepared to take those four individual cases into consideration he hoped that it would be prepared to take into consideration many other deserving cases also.

said that a distinction should be made between persons wounded during the war and those injured in the course of their employment. Every nation should honour its heroes, and he hoped the present cases would not only be referred to the Government, but would be favourably considered.

The motion was agreed to.

said that, in reference to the hon. member for Albany, this seemed to be a very hard case. He had no objection to its being referred back to the Committee for consideration. The man was dismissed on account of ill-health at a time when he was within a few months of being entitled to full pension.

said he thought they were going to create a very undesirable precedent, and he was only sorry that the hon. member for Cape Town, Central, was not in his place to support him in his objection to this. If the hon. member for Albany had any new matter to bring before the House which he thought the Committee ought to be placed in possession of, he would be quite right in proposing this motion and the Vice-Chairman of the Committee would be quite right in accepting it, but to refer this matter back to the Committee in these circumstances was implying a censure on the Committee now in saying that the House was of opinion that they had not performed their duties properly. He desired to raise his voice in protest against action of this kind being taken.

said that surely the hon. member for King William’s Town, who had sat not only on the Pensions Committee of this House from the time of Union, but who had also sat for many years on the Pensions Committee of the old Cape House, was better qualified to judge as to whether it would be an insult to the Committee to refer this matter back than the hon. member who sat opposite, and, as the hon. member for King William’s Town, as Vice-Chairman of the Committee had agreed that this case should go back, he thought that the Committee would take his view before they would take the view of the hon. member who sat opposite. (Hear, hear.) They all recognised that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Orr) had rendered many services to this country, but at the present moment he was not on the Pensions Committee. (Laughter.) The hon. gentleman had said that no now matter had been brought forward. The hon. member for Albany had given some new matter. He (Sir T. W. Smartt) was informed that this gentleman, a policeman, spent 19 years and seven months in the service of the Government, but, owing to an attack of neuritis, it was impossible for him to continue his duties. Had he served for 20 years he would have been entitled to his full pension, but, in view of the fact that he was a few months short, he understood that the man got a pension on the basis of 15 years’ service.

said that he proposed to go before the Select Committee and give evidence on this case.

It was agreed that item 33 be referred back to the Committee for consideration.

said he noticed that in section 3 (2) the Committee had made a recommendation which it would be necessary that a motion should be adopted by this Committee to give effect to. With regard to the case of N. J. Greeff and J. McKay, the Committee stated that they were unable to make a recommendation, but they expressed a hope that, should an opportunity occur, suitable employment would be given to them in the Railway Department. He moved that the Committee recommend that the Government be requested to consider the advisability of finding suitable employment for N. J. Greeff and J. McKay in the Railway Department should an opportunity occur.

The motion was agreed to.

said he would like to bring to the notice of the Committee the last item in subsection (b), in regard to the award to Mrs. H. H. Elliott, the widow of the late H. H. Elliott, Maintenance Engineer, S.A.R., of a special pension, or, alternatively, a gratuity, in recognition of the services of her late husband. The Committee reported that they were “unable to concur in the proposals therein contained.” He understood that the reason why the Committee brought up this report was that they considered that this was one of the cases referred to by the Minister of Mines which should not have been brought before the Committee, but should have been dealt with by the Government. The reason why the case was brought before the Committee was due to the action of the Minister of Railways, who had submitted the papers in connection with Mrs. Elliott’s petition to the Committee. It was unnecessary for him (Sir T. W. Smartt) to refer to the sad circumstances under which Mr. Elliott lost his life. He was for many years one of the most distinguished servants in the Cape Government service, and until a few months ago was a distinguished engineer in the service of the Union Railways. During the period of the strike, when his health was in anything but a good condition, desirous of doing his duty, he practically lost his life in the service of the State, and if ever there was a case where the Government should take a matter of this kind into consideration and bring forward proposals to the House, he thought it was the case of the sad death of Mr. Elliott. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Committee would be prepared to accept the proposal that this case be referred to the Government for consideration, and he moved accordingly,

said that, in reference to this case, the Pensions Committee considered that it was a form of proceeding that they were not justified in carrying out, and they, therefore, refused it. It was a matter, he thought, that the railway authorities ought to take into consideration with reference to any question of compensation.

said that under these circumstances the Government would not oppose the motion of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, but he did not wish, by accepting the motion, to compromise the Government in any way as to what decision they would come to after inquiry. This remark would also apply to the previous motion in regard to the four men who were sufferers on account of the late war. There was a definite proposal in regard to Mrs. Elliott’s petition, but he understood that the Committee was “unable to concur in the proposals therein contained.” Evidently the Railway Department did put in a definite proposal. The Government would have to consider the whole matter on its merits.

said that recommendations came in in reference to this case from the Minister of Railways and Harbours, the Railway Board, and the General Manager of Railways All the recommendations were worded practically the same recommending the same pension or the same alternative in the form of a gratuity. It seemed to him that, instead of this matter coming through the usual channel and being referred by the Select Committee to the Government, it had, in the first place, come from the Government to the Select Committee, and now it was going back to the Government. It seemed to him that the Government knew what they were going to do in the matter before anyone else. Was Government going to take the initiative when no strike was on ?

Can you inform the Committee why the Select Committee could not concur in the recommendations made by the General Manager?

replied that the Select Committee felt that this was an exceptional case, and while it fully sympathised with the claims made on behalf of Mrs. Elliott, the committee felt it would be going outside the scope of its duties in recommending it.

said that any gratuity or pension recommended by the Select Committee would come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer. Mr. Elliott having been in the Railway Department, any pension or gratuity granted to his widow should come out of the railway revenue.

said he did not understand the matter at all, after the lucid explanations of the last two speakers. (Laughter.) Suppose the Government recommended a gratuity, the papers containing that recommendation would have to be laid on the Table of the House; but here we had a Select Committee to go into these matters, and the proper course would be to send the matter to the Select Committee. But if the committee did not concur, the Government could still come to the House.

said the Select Committee had to go by certain precedents, and it had referred the matter back to the Government, which must take the responsibility. If any money were voted to Mrs. Elliott, it would have to come out of the railway revenue.

said the Minister of Railways had laid on the Table papers relating to the award to Mrs. Elliott of a special pension or gratuity, in recognition of the services of her late husband. The papers were then referred to the Select Committee. The only object in laying the papers on the Table was to show that the Minister considered that it was one of those cases in which some provision ought to be made. Practically ever since Union the Select Committee had taken up a different position to what it had taken up in the old Cape House. It now said that the Union was so large that the committee did not consider it was within its duty to go outside the rules which laid down the basis on which pensions and gratuities should be paid, and it did not deal with anything in the nature of a charitable be quest. But that did not take away from the Government the responsibility of dealing with very hard cases, and making some concrete proposal to the House and taking the responsibility of that proposal.

said he did not want to raise any objection, but the point was that the committee did not say what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said. The section was worded in such a way that it implied that the committee were opposed to the grant being made If he was the Minister of Railways, and that happened to him, he would not be so bold after that as to come to the House. If what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort said was correct, the committee should simply have referred the matter to the Government.

said he thought the trouble was that the Minister should have placed a definite proposal before the House.

said that the committee had a similar case in 1912 when the committee recommended a pension to the Government, and it was granted. He agreed that the matter should be referred back.

said that the committee felt that if the committee granted this request, for which there was no precedent, they might have dozens of similar requests from all sides.

Will it be left to the Government to decide what should be given?

It will have to be sanctioned by the House.

said that the point was the use of the words “cannot concur.” That was really not what the committee meant when it reported.

It was decided to agree to the referring the case of Elliott to the Government for consideration.

wanted to call attention to a particular case in section 3.

ruled that they had got to the ‘bottom of the report, and could not go back.

mentioned that he was then also in the same boat.

said item one was taken seriatim.

I have no recommendation in the other cases.

pointed out that when the committee made a recommendation the Chairman put that recommendation seriatim, but when the committee made no recommendation it was for hon. members to raise any point.

moved that the Chairman report the resolutions.

pressed for the Chairman’s ruling.

kept to his previous ruling on the matter, and put the question that the resolutions of the committee should be reported to the House.

The motion was agreed to, and it was agreed that the report should be brought up to-morrow.